Gun Culture

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Abortion law review oddity

Now, I am not desperately comfortable with the concept of abortion.  I struggle with the concept of imposing my morality on others though, but what of the rights of the unborn?  I’d prefer abortion didn’t happen but I’d rather it was done professionally rather than go back to the ‘good old days’ of the back street abortionists.

Now that’s out of the way on to the current goings on.  The argument goes that because premature babies of below 24 weeks have survived due to improved medical practices that we should reduce the limit.  What?  So when medicine was not so clever it was moral, but now it isn’t?  What kind of bullshit argument is that?  We’ll ignore for now that many of the survivors (and not all prems survive at that age) grow up with severe difficulties, even if we assume they all survive and are fine the fact that medical science has worked wonders does surely not change the validity of life.
Either it is right to abort a feotus or it is not, that it can be grown on in vitro should not be a factor.  Very few (if any) prem births would survive anywhere near the 24 week boundary without the amazing technology we have now.  If we did not have the technology would this mean that abortion up to 30+ weeks would be valid?  No.  Then why should an advance mean a change in the rules.

I believe that the technological argument is merely being used as an excuse for anti-abortionists to completely ban abortion by bites.  Some day it will be possible to grow a feotus completely in-vitro, will abortion be completely abolished along with all contraception?